TECHNICAL NOTES
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS.
No. 98.
NOTES ON THE DESIGN OF LATTICED .COLUMNS SUBJECT TO LATERAL LOADS
By Charles J. McCarthy,
Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department.
May, 1S22.
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS.
TECHNICAL NOTE NO. 98.
NOTES ON THE DESIGN OF LATTICED COLUMNS
SUBJECT TO LATERAL LOADS.
By diaries J. McCarthy,
Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department.
. ; _ The increasing interest in the use of metal for the con
struction of aircraft makes timely a discussion of the problems
and difficulties to be met in the design of efficient compression
members. No rational column formula has yet been developed
which gives results which are sufficiently precise for the de
sign of airplane members, and consequently it is necessary to
fall back upon experimental testing. In order to derive the max
imum benefit from experiments, however, it is necessary that the
experiments be guided by theory, and it is the object of this
paper to suggest a method of procedure by means of which the data
needed to modify existing formulae may be obtained with a minimum
of tests.
Although it is common in wing construction to find ving beams
continuous over several supports, for the sake of simplicity this
discussion will be limited to that of a simple column supported
at both ends and subjected to uniformly distributed loads perpen
dicular to its axis and to end loads either axially or eccentri
cally applied.
 s 
Ideal Columns .
The failing strength of a perfectly straight homogeneous
column with pinned ends in whioh the compressive load is exactly
axially applied is expressed by Euler 1 s formula:
P* no /K
= TT 8
2
E
("t") (1 >
Where P' is the critical end load;
A is the cross sectional area of the column >
E is the modulus of elasticity of the material ;
L is the least ratio of length to radius of .
gyration.
K
It should be kept in mind that the critical load calculated
from the aboTre formula is the end load required to buckle the
strut and that for loads smaller than this the ideal column re
mains perfectly straight. It is apparent also that the column ■
will fail elastically as soon as the stress at the ends reaches
the elastic limit of the material. Consequently the curve of ul
timate stress vs. L/K for ai Euler column has the form of the
right hand curve of Fig. 1. ^
If now instead of being axially applied, the end load has an
eccentricity, h, bending stresses are introduced which increase
the stresses in the fibers of the column and decrease the magni
tude of the load which will cause failure* In the case of a prac
tical strut, variations in the shape and .thickness of the section,
initial curvature and other imperfections have the effect of giving
an eccentricity to the end load.
 3 
The equation for the maximum intensity of stress under these
conditions is given "by Morley as*
■*  A ( 1 + 2K :
sec
2 J ei ;
(2)
Where P is the end load applied;
A 'is the cross sectional area of the column;
h is the eccentricity, i. e. , the distance from
the point of application of the load to the
centroid of the section;
d is the depth of the section in the plane of
bending;
k is the radius of gyration in the plane of
bending.
This formula may be expressed (approximately) as follows:
f + = ~
1 +
1. 2 hd "
2K a
i siL
TT 2 EI
(3)
which may be simplified by substituting the Euler load, P' for
the expression — —■.
Thus, f t = f
+ P (21— \ (1
a vp'  py v
.6 hd ^
K 3 J
(4)
Failure occurs when f^ reaches the elastic limit of the
material in compression, f c
;ed in equ
approaches infinity
It will be noted in equation (4) that as P approaches P'
P r
the ratio
P'  P
The curves of Fig 1, which are' taken from Morley, are of in
terest as they show how end stress at failure is affected by vary
. * Morley. Strength of Materials 1916, p. 376.
£* Ibid. p. 376.
_ 4 
ing eccentricities and varying values of L/K.
Another condition to be considered is the combination of the
axial loads with forces perpendicular to the axis of the strut. ■
The deflection of the strut which is produced by the lateral
loads has the effect of making the axial loads eccentric with a
consequent increase in the maximum bending moment in the strut.
The total bending moment is the sum of an infinite series , the
first two terms of which are the bending moment due to the later
al load, and that of the product of the axial load by the deflec
tion of the column under the lateral loads. For a uniformly dis
tributed lateral load of w per unit length the exact equation
for the maximum bending moment at the center of the column, M
under the combined loading, is given by
This may be more conveniently expressed by Perry 1 s approxi
mate formula:
where M is the maximum bending moment due to the lateral loads
alone, and the other symbols have the same significance as before.
If Z equals the section modulus the maximum fiber stress
due to bending equals
*' Morley. p. 283.
4
The error introduced by this approximation amounts to less
than 3 percent for ratios of p top 1 up to 0« 9.
Combining equations (4) and (7) results in a general formula
for the maximum intensity of stress in a perfectly straight col
umn of homogeneous material with pin ends, loaded with a unif orin
ly distributed transverse load, which, acting alone, would pro
duce a maximum bending moment M; and in addition, an end load,
P which is applied a distance, h from the centroid of the
section in the plane of bending.
% a . a vp'  p ; v k 3 ; z p>  p K J
This formula is an approximation, but is sufficiently precise
when the ratio of p to P r does not exceed 0.9. For higher val
ues the formulae of equations (2) and (5) are recommended. It
should be noted here that p« in equation (8). is introduced
merely as a substitute for the expression n I 1 and its value
L
is not limited by the strength of the material at the elastic
limit, as is the case when calculating the strength of a "Euler"
strut, as has been explained in connection with equation (1).
Failure of the column may be expected to occur when the total
fiber stress f t reaches the elastic limit of the material in
compression.
Latticed Golumns .
The above formula, equation (8)/ has been derived for a col
umn of homogeneous material, but may be applied to one built up
 6 
of longitudinal members 01 flanges which, are laced together witL:
lattice bars if attention is paid to the fact that the individual
flanges act independently as little columns of length equal to
,the lattice spacing. The maximum fiber stress of equation (8)
should be limited to the end stress which the flange will carry
as a pinended column whose length equals the lattice spacing.
It is not correct to base the design of a lattice column on the
assumption that the column is homogeneous and then limit the
spacing of the lattices such that the — of each flange between
K.
the points of attachment of lattices does not exceed the j? of
the column as a whole. This procedure leaves no margin to allow
for the increase in stress in the flange due to its acting as an
independent column between lattices.
Another point to be noted is that when the column is acting
as a beam the flanges receive their load from the lattices', and
the flange as a whole acts approximately along its centroidal
axis, in calculating the section modulus, Z, therefore, it
will be. more nearly representative of the true" condition if the
"extreme fiber distance"', Y, is measured from the centroid of
the flange instead of taking onehalf the depth of the column.
This amounts practically to assuming that the stress is uniformly
distributed over the flange section.
Applicat ion of "Theory to Practical Columns .
Many attempts have been made to develop a rational formula
which will properly express the state of stress in a practical
 7 
column, bat this has not yet been accomplished. Paaswell says *
in commenting on a recent paper on the subject: "Briefly, a col
umn is an engineering structure subjected to a compressive force
of a determinate character and to a flexure absolutely indetermi
nate and unpredictive with any mathematical certainty. This of
course refers to columns presumably axially loaded. The intro
duction of flexural stresses occurs in a manner which can only
form a matter of conjecture."
Chew** classifies imperfections which may reduce the strength
of an actual column as follows:
"1. Initial stresses in material due to manufacture.
2. Variation in strength of component parts of section.
3. Crookedness of component parts.
4. Crookedness of whole member.
5. Local stresses due to details and shop work.
6. Accidental eccentricity.
7. Deflection caused by the foregoing imperfections. «
Basquin*** too has gone into the problem of developing a
formula for the design of columns which will take separate ac
count of the stresses to be anticipated in the actual column due
to crookedness, probable eccentrioities, etc. , but the tests on
which his work has been based were not extensive enough to warrant
the general application of his conclusions to design.
It has been found, furthermore, that a builtup column as re
gards bending action does not act as a perfect unit* Fig. 3 is
* Proc. ASCE, January, 1923.
** Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs. ," May", 1911.
*** Basquin on Columns Journal W. S.C.E. 3 1911.
 8 
taken from the comments of Prof. H. F. Moore, of the University
of Illinois*, and gives the results of a series of tests conduct
ed at the University of Illinois to determine the ratio of com
puted to actual fiber stress in the cross section of members
built up of channels, fastened together with different types of
lacing. Quoting Prof. Moore, "Short column sections (all of the
same length) were tested as beams with flexure in a plane paral
lel to the plane of the lacing. Assuming integrity of action of
cross section, the extreme fiber stresses in a test beam were
calculated for various loads, and the actual fiber deformations
developed under these loads were measured by means of a strain
gauge, and the actual fiber stresses, determined from the ob
served elongations and compressions, were indicated by the strain
gauge. In Fig. 3 is shown the variation of f lexural efficiency
with computed fiber stress for various column sections. In a
column of usual length in structures (^ = 50 to 75), the com
pressive stress is the principal stress in the column and the
flexural stress is not very high; so in comparing the flexural
efficiencies of different column sections the efficiencies under
low flexural stresses are most significant. The superiority of
the doublelaced section with rivets at the crossing of the bars
is evident; the efficiency of this section at low stress proved
to be the same as the efficiency of a pair of channels tested in '
flexure in a plane parallel to the plane of their webs. The low
efficiency of channels connected by mea ns of batten plates is
* Illinois University Bulletin No. 40.
 9 
noteworthy as is the very low efficiency of two channels connect
ed by no n overlapping bars with only one rivet for each end of a
bar. In each test piece approximately the same weight of lacing
material was used, .and all tests were in duplicate. Each test
was loaded symmetrically at two points of the span, and the spans
were the same for all test pieces* n
Major Nicholson has also observed, in a series of tests on
metal girders designed for airplanes, that the deflections of
latticed girders under transverse loading exceeded those of simi
lar girders with solid webs.*
The weight of other authorities whose opinions are in the
same vein might be added, .but those quoted^ above should be suffi
cient to indicate the difficulties to be encountered in attempt
ing to calculate the distribution of stress in compression mem
bers. In ordinary structural design these difficulties are some
times circumvented by the device of limiting the calculated max
imum intensity of stress due to the combination of end and side
loads to the allowable end stress on the strut as a simple pin
ended column. This procedure is illustrated in the design of a
large derrick boom, which has been worked out in detail by M. G.
Bland in a paper entitled "Investigation of Stresses in Derricks?*'"
This procedure is conservative, and while it probably gives re
sults which are quite satisfactory for structural work where a
slight excess in the weight of a member is not a serious matter,
it is not sufficiently precise for general use in the design of
* The Development of Metal Construction in "Aircraft Engineer
ing," London, March 12, 1920.
** Trans. ASGE, 1920.
 10 
airplane girders, particularly when the end load is relatively
small compared with the transverse load. As the magnitude of the
end load approaches aero, the column becomes a siicple beam, but
according to the above method the criterion for the maximum in
tensity of fiber stress is still the limiting stress on the mem
ber as a pinended column.
We are thus forced to the conclusion that for the design of
compression members the theoretical formulae must be reinforced
and modified by experiments on the particular type of column
which is to be used. The most hopeful procedure is to select a
formula such as equation (8) and by a series of careful experi
ments on fullsize columns, determine the factors which must be
introduced into this formula to make it fit the actual members.
•Referring to equation (8), it will be noted that there are two
quantities, P' and h, to which modifying factors could be
applied.
As has been stated previously, P 1 in this formula is mere
ly a shorthand expression of the quantity — — 5. Now the only
quantity in this expression' to be determined experimentally is
the E, which represents the modulus of elasticity of the built
up member. This can be easily found by measuring the deflection
of the column when loaded as. a simple beam by a. transverse load
concentrated at the center, and solving for E in the wellknown
deflection formula S «= ~ ?£. The procedure may be improved,
48 EI
howeveT, by retaining ~E as the modulus of elasticity of the
 11 
material of which the column is built and introducing a coeffi
cient C into the formula: thus S = i ?fe ■ may oe looked
48 CEI
upon as the "form factor" for the section,, and represents the
ratio of the stiffness of the actual column to that of a solid
theoretical column of the same material. This coefficient could
then be applied to the calculation of P 1 , but it will be pref
erable to introduce into equation (8) and use the modulus of
elasticity of the material in calculating p».
The term h, may be considered as being the sum of the known
eccentricity of the application of the load to ends of the col
umn H, and an equivalent eccentricity which represents the over
all "constructional" eccentricity of the actual column, that is,
the sum of the imperfections of the actual strut and is designat
ed by e. To find e, it is necessary to build and test as pin
ended struts with axial loads, a number of fullsized columns of
varying lengths of the type to be used. These test specimens
should of course be built as far as possible to the same quality
of workmanship and straightness as will be followed in the con
struction of the columns or beams to be used in the airplane it
self, a column formula may be plotted from the results of these
tests and e calculated from the relation
06 ed = /+ Jl  i\ / CP 1  Pp *
K
 e^ 1 ) r^) < 9 >
Where f c = the compressive elastic limit of the mater
_ ial for homogeneous struts and for latticed
struts the limiting unit end stress on an
individual flange of a length equal to the
lattice spacing,
* From ifoxley, p. 376.
 13 
. —  = the observed ultimate end stress as a pm
ended column.
p* = critical end load calculated from Euler' s
formula.
G = the form factor coefficient' mentioned above
.(This factor does not appear in the formula,
as given by Morley. )
With latticed columns additional tests must be made of the
strength of the individual flanges as pinended columns to deter
mine the proper value of f to be used in the above formula.
The above equation (9) appears somewhat formidable , but it
will be found from experiment in most cases that the eccentricity
e, can be sufficiently expressed as a simple function of the
or
length/of the • L/K of the column.
Introducing the above modifications, equation (8) may be re
written as
* _ Z + Z / CP f \ / 0.6 (e + H) d N M / GP' \. (10)
° " a a vgp»  p ; \ k 5 ; . z \cp'  py
Forces in the Bracing of Latticed Qolumns .
■ The forces which act upon lattice bars have been divided by
Basquin into three classes:* "First, those introduced in the fabri
cation of the column;; second, those due to transverse shear caus
ed by local bends in the column; and third, those due to trans
verse shear caused by general inclination of the column. " The
latter two conditions have been investigated in a series of care
ful extensometer tests by Talbot and Moore.**' In case of a
column built of two channels latticed together with flat bars and
* journal W.S.C.E. , 1913, p.493.
** "An Investigation of Bui It tto Columns Under Load," University
of Illinois Bulletin #40 of June 10th.
*■ 13 
with an average end stress of 10,000 pounds per square inch,
they conclude that:. "It is evident from the tests that the rel
ative stress in the twochannel members varies considerably from
end to end and that the stress in the lattice bars also varies.
It seems probable that the transverse shear developed may be
*
traced largely to irregularities in outline, or at least that
these irregularities may be expected to cover up other causes of
stress in the lacing of centrally loaded columns, if we include
in such irregularities all unknown eccentricity. The futility
o£ attempting to determine analytically the stresses in column
lacing, using as a basis either a bending moment curve which var
ies from end to middle or an assumed deflection curve, is appar
ent from a study of the variation of stress in the columns of the
tests and in that of the lattice bars. "
It is nebessary, nevertheless, to find some means of approxi
mating the loads in the lattice members. The method most favored
in the design of structural columns is to assume that the column
is loaded with a uniformly distributed transverse load w, where
w is the transverse load, which, considering the oolumn as a sim
ple beam, will produce a maximum fiber stress equal to the differ
ence between the elastic limit of the material and the end unit
stress allowed by the column formula. The vertical component of
wl
the load in the lattices at the ends of the column equals r ,
which is assumed to be equally distributed between the lattices
cut by a vertical pl ane normal to the axis of the girder*
* Spofford  "The Theory of Structures,"' 1915, p. 303.
 14 
Alexander* has investigated the distribution of the shearing
stresses in an ideal column, using equations which involve the
true elastic curve of flexure of the column. His expression for
the maximum shear may be put into the form
R
_ IT Z / ^ P
(* ^) CU)
Where R = the shear at end of column;
Z = section modulus;
fo= limiting stress on short column;
P'= Euler .crippling load.
The constant rr in the above equation is increased to 5 for
actual struts to allow for longitudinal irregularities and slight
imperfections in fitting and securing the lattice bars.
It may be noted that the assumption that the shear may be
determined on the basis of the uniformly distributed lateral load
mentioned above amounts to assuming a parabolic curve for the de
flection of the column. This latter approximation gives a value
of
■a  M
R ~ L
( f ci)
which exoeeds the shear calculated by the more exact method but
is less than that recommended by Alexander for practical columns.
Until this subject has been more thoroughly investigated by exper
iment, it is recommended that the shear in lattice bars be calcu
lated by Alexander's formula,
R L
( f °T) • ^
* TSta. Alexander, "ffolmms and Struts," 1912, Chap. X.
lo
in view also of the approximate nature of this method., and the
variations in shear due to local irregularities, etc. , no attempt
should be made to* vary the strength of the latticing along the
length of the column. Alexander points out that "the points
where the deflection is a maximum and the shearing forces nil,
are unknown and certain to be different in each strut," and con
cludes^ "each case must be considered on its own merits. No gen
eral formula can be given for even the probable limits of reduc
tion in shearing stresses. n
/ P ! \
It will be noted that the expression / f c  r j in equa
tion (13) would equal the fiber stress in an ideal strut due to
flexure. To apply this formula to a practical strut, substitute
P'
for — the fiber stress permitted by the experimental formula.
The resulting shear in the lattices will be 20 per cent in excess
of that determined by the procedure given by spofford.
To find the shear in the lattice bars of a strut under com
bined end and transverse loads, let the sum of the second and
third terms of equation (10) equal f^
Then R = ~ (f b ) (13)
This use of this formula is recommended.
Illustrative Problem ..
To illustrate the application of this method of analysis an
example will be worked out. The column chosen is of suitable
proportions to be used as a portion of the wing beam of a large
 16 
airplane. Its strength about the horizontal axis only will be in
vestigated. Fig. 3 is a sketch of the column. It will be noted
that the latticing on the top and bottom faces is entirely inside
the flanges. While not the best design from a structural stand
point, it is desirable to facilitate sliding the wing ribs along
£he beam in the assembly of the wing panel.
.Let P = the total end load including the factor of safety =
30,000 lbs.
M = maximum bending moment due to the uniformly dis
tributed transverse loads = 81,600 inch pounds.
L = length of beam between points of inflexion = 144
inches.
A = area of flanges = 0.88 square inches.
I = moment of inertia  6.9 (inches)*
K = radius of gyration of section about axis XX = 3.8
inches.
L/K = 144/2.8 = 51.
y = distance from centroid of section to centroid of
flange =2.8 inches.
Z = Section modulus = I/y = 2.46 inches cubed.
f c = crippling end stress on one angle of flanges as a
pinended column whose length equals the pitch of
the lattices = 105,000 lbs. per sq. in.
TT3EI
P = failing load as a pinended column.
In the absence of experimental data on columns of this type,
curve Aof"«Fi
curve A of Fig. 4 has been more or less arbitrarily Chosen to rep
resent the relation between L/K and the failing end stress.
G  the form factor coefficient has been assumed equal
to 0.8.
Then ■ 5 2 =' 58,000 lbs. per sq. in. from Fig. 4.
and OP' = 6.8^(30,000,000) (0,88x3.8°) = , 79 , 000 .
(144) 2
 17 
Find the "constructional eccentricity" of the column e fi'on
equation (9).
0. 6 e
J[d) = / 105000 _ X N / 79000  58000 (. 88 )\ = 0# 2 9
(K) 3 V 58000 / V 79000 /
and e = 0.606" which is ^=z. of the length of the column.
Substituting the above value of u into equation (10)
the maximum fiber stress in the flanges at a point of attachment
of the lattice equals
= £ 2 / CP' \ / 0.6 ed \ + M / GP 1 ^ —
* A + A VCP 1  P J V K 3 J Z VCP'  P y^_
34100 + 34100 (™™°) (0..29) + 23^0 / 79000 \ =
44.LUU.+ 44AUU V 49000^ .2.46 V 49000 /
= 103400 lbs. per sq. in.
Since f^ is less than 105000 lbs. per sq. in, , the area
provided in the flanges is sufficient.
Load in Lattice Members.
By equation (13) the shear at the end of the column equals
5Z
L
R = ~ (* b ).
There f^ equals the maximum flexual fiber stress as ex
pressed by the second and third terms of equation (8).
r = 5 jjjh 46 ) 69300 = 5920 lbs.
. 144
Assuming the above shear distributed equally between the four
lattices cut by a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of
~ 18 
the column, the total load in each lattice equals
5920 x 7,25 = 19Q5 lbfl#
4 562
Strength of Individual Lattices .
Assume that the lattice in compression is supported at the
center by the adjaoent lattice which is in tension and that the
lattice fails as a pinended column whose length is equal to one
half the length of the lattice between centers of flange rivets.
Area of section = 0.0325 sq. in.
Least radius of gyrations = 0.075 in.
L/K = :fM = 45 
In the absence of test data on lattices as used in 'this de
sign a column formula somewhat more conservative than Rankin' s
has been arbitrarily chosen. Using steel having an elastic limit
of 100,000 lbs. per sq. in. , the allowable p/A for an L/K of 45
equals 60,000 lbs. per sq.in. . .
The strength of the lattice = 60,000 x 0.0325 = 1950 lbs.,
which exceeds the required strength of 1905 lbs. The lattice de
sign is therefore satisfactory.
. o
•rl
<U
a 4
CO
25
+»
0$
S
•H
P
Ecce ntricity hQ,(E?ul
er
' s! idea.ll case)
Ratio
40
I
K
section.
100 ISO 140', 160
Mild steel strut of circular
Fig. 1.
Horley strength of mater
ials1916.
Specimen with webs of channels
vertical.
43
a
<t>
o
H
Jas
O
<D
■H
O
il
«H
«H
100
■ 80
60
40
20
1
i
t ■■■
I

t
A
i
i '<
_._
L ,l
B
! !
_^_
C*
^^
^**^*
r^L 1 —
D
■
l"
■■'"■■L
*■**■**»
>_ 
E
— i»
i ■
i i ■
—
: —
! !
i
i j
i
i
1

i
 — '•
....
0L_
3000 4000 6000 8000 10000 13000
P
* »  1 ■ » ' "*}
• • » * J
mm
Computed fibre stress in flexurelbs. /sq, in.
Efficiency=( computed fibre stress) f (observed
fibre stress)
Fig. 2.
Sect ion "AA"
K i.H
$~ V" ^ cM h — 4"/V ^ 4 — _f — 4 fe 7 ^ • _j_
«_ _ ^M la
Lattice in bottom view.
ikk t pine
280,000
240,000
300,000
,3
o
09
160,000 
(D
ft .
CQ
rJ
, 130,000
80,000
40,000
0,000
i
• _
i 
J t
Eule
i i
rpin end*rE=30j000,000
L .
! lbs.
' per
sq. iiioh.
I
_\
'
i
A
i
i
!
i
i
* J \
i
1
i
i
1 1
1 !
i
i
^"""■n^^ J
v
•
i
!
f
. 30
Fig. 4.
40 60
L/K
80
100